Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 4, 2021

Rodriguez v. LaManna

Judge
George Daniels
Docket
1:20-cv-07547
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
27
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Rodriguez v. LaManna, Judge Lehrburger accepted a limited timeliness response and gave Rodriguez until April 15, 2021, to respond before resolving the motion.

Who this affects

Johnny Rodriguez and Jamie LaManna. Rodriguez was given a deadline to respond to the respondent’s timeliness motion; the order did not determine the petition’s outcome.

What happened

In Rodriguez v. LaManna, the respondent asked to dismiss Rodriguez’s federal petition as filed too late. The court accepted that letter as a limited response addressing only the filing deadline.

Rodriguez, who was representing himself, was given until April 15, 2021, to file a response. The order did not decide whether the petition was timely or whether it should be dismissed.

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered that, if Rodriguez did not respond, the court would proceed to decide the motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rodriguez v. LaManna · No. 1:20-cv-07547
Judge
George Daniels
Date
Mar. 4, 2021

Background

Johnny Rodriguez filed a federal petition challenging his state-court conviction. Jamie LaManna, the respondent, submitted a letter asking to limit the response to whether the petition was filed after the applicable one-year deadline. The letter argued that the petition was more than seven months late and requested dismissal on that basis.

Court’s action

The court accepted the respondent’s letter as a limited answer to the petition. It directed Rodriguez to file any response by April 15, 2021. The court stated that, if Rodriguez did not respond, it would proceed to resolve the respondent’s motion.

What the order decided

The order did not decide whether the petition was untimely, whether any exception to the filing deadline applied, or whether the petition should be dismissed. It also did not address the merits of Rodriguez’s claims. The ruling was limited to accepting the respondent’s filing and setting a response deadline.

The authoritative version

Read the full 27-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.